Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PowerBook & eMac EOL'd?

chaos86 said:
i always thought those ibm thinkpads were the ugliest pieces of crap i had ever seen.
Click to expand...


eye of the beholder. The x series makes the pb12 and ibook 12 look bloated, in my opinion.


--ph0rk
 
bellis1 said:
A friend of mine who works at an Apple store has whispered to me the next Powerbooks will be dual G4s. That is all I know.
Click to expand...
And how would he know?

I, too, have a friend who works at an Apple Store. Store employees are not given any information about new products until they actually ship.

And, as recent lawsuits prove, employees privy to pre-release information are under strict NDA.

I wouldn't consider this source any more reliable than what we read in these forums every day.
 
SiliconAddict said:
Oh and in other news....

Intel pre-announces Centrino Sonoma :( *insert irked emocicon here*

Slightly off topic but pertainant to the mobile laptop discussion and the need for something new…

I would love to see actual benchmarks on the next gen Pentium M chips against the latest and greatest G4 laptops. I think every die-hard Mac fan would have to start polishing up the phrase "But it doesn't run OS X". Because frankly that is the only thing going for the PowerBook line these days.

Honestly at this point G4 Dual core, G5, G3, or G3.14159265~ I don't give a crap as long as it can at least get within a stride or two of AMD's and Intel's mobile chips.
Click to expand...



ah yes, but lets not forget that benchmarks are taken from brand new machines. put a 1 year used mac up against a one year used pc and see who wins. after a year of viruses, spyware, 30 taskbar icons, windows corrupting itself, etc etc the mac will come out the victor every time. and it wont have an unchangable porno homepage and 8 million non-deletable porn favorites either.
 
1.7 isn't big enough

I have no idea what we are going to be seeing when they release these new PBs.

But I do not think we will see a speed bump of 200 MHz. Especially with the recent release of the MacMini (The ULTRA BUDGET computer).

Compare the macMini (the $599 version) to the current 17" PB.... They are exaxct other than video card and clock speed (80MHz more in the PB).

Why would Apple release a tiny speed bump on a PRO-SUMER series, when the speed bump would still only make it marginally faster than their budget system?

I'm not saying G5s, but I do think we'll see an upgraded FSB beyonf clock speed...

at least I'm hoping, because If I can get essentially the same computer (as the PB 17") for $2000 less in a desktop version... something has to be wrong... I just hope that Apple notices this
 
luv-pepper said:
I have no idea what we are going to be seeing when they release these new PBs.

But I do not think we will see a speed bump of 200 MHz. Especially with the recent release of the MacMini (The ULTRA BUDGET computer).

Compare the macMini (the $599 version) to the current 17" PB.... They are exaxct other than video card and clock speed (80MHz more in the PB).

Why would Apple release a tiny speed bump on a PRO-SUMER series, when the speed bump would still only make it marginally faster than their budget system?

I'm not saying G5s, but I do think we'll see an upgraded FSB beyonf clock speed...

at least I'm hoping, because If I can get essentially the same computer (as the PB 17") for $2000 less in a desktop version... something has to be wrong... I just hope that Apple notices this
Click to expand...


its fubr at the moment, but apple will sort it out , i have faith ...
i still think we are only going to see a 170mhz jump. Look on the bright side. My first computer (amiga 500) had a clock speed of 7.14 MHz.. this upgrade alone is 23 times more than that :p j/k
 
chaos86 said:
ah yes, but lets not forget that benchmarks are taken from brand new machines. put a 1 year used mac up against a one year used pc and see who wins. after a year of viruses, spyware, 30 taskbar icons, windows corrupting itself, etc etc the mac will come out the victor every time. and it wont have an unchangable porno homepage and 8 million non-deletable porn favorites either.
Click to expand...

Anyone retarded enough to have that happen doesn't really deserve decent performance anyway. Assuming you allow xp or 2k to apply its own security patches and use firefox (using windows doesn't have to mean using IE; I use firefox on my g4 too), the only way you'd have that much crap clogging your system is if you download every widget porn/warez sites ask you to (and accept security certs from dubious sources, etc).

The real issue with virii and malware is that people are stupid, not that windows is easy to infect. (Current machines with up to date patches do not 'catch' anything until someone uses them stupidly.)

The subset of OSX users that are similarly stupid just happens to benefit from their relative obscurity... for now.


That said; 2k does deteriorate over time, though not nearly as bad as previous MS operating systems. Registry management seems to be the worst issue, and if one installs a relatively small number of apps (like on a gaming only machine, for example) it is unnecessary to reinstall the os between large hardware upgrades (like new hard drives). I have not noticed the same effect with XP personally, but it wouldn't shock me.

And at the rate powerbooks are scaling, the newest pb will still be slower than a 1 year old sonoma that an idiot has been using to surf for pr0n, unfortunately.


--ph0rk
 
brian4610 said:
how would a dual G4 be better/not as good as a G5? and how much better would a dual G4 be compaired to the current PB?
Click to expand...
I'll see if I can explain.

The G4 is a Motorola/Freescale PowerPC 74xx series processor. It is 32-bit, supports up to 4G of RAM (if the motherboard does, of course), and runs at a variety of different clock speeds, topping out at around 1.7GHz these days.

The G5 is an IBM PowerPC 970 series processor. It is 64-bit, but is compatible with 32-bit software. It theoretically supports up to 16ExB (that's 16 million TB), but no motherboard in existance comes close to that capacity (The top-end Mac G5 motherboards support up to 8G right now.) It also runs at a variety of different clock speeds, topping out at 2.5GHz these days.

In terms of performance, a G5 is more efficient than a G4 for many operations. Some of this is due to a different fabrication process and some due to optimizations in the microcode/functional units. The G5's benefits really manifest themselves when you're running 64-bit code - programs that need to do 64-bit arithmetic or use more than 4G of memory can do so without software kluges, because the processor has built-in support.

For more ordinary applications (32-bit code, less than 4G of RAM used), the differences are much smaller. Overall, for these kinds of apps, with all else being equal a G4 and a G5 at the same clock speed will perform similar to each other.

Of course, all else is not equal. G5 PowerMacs and iMacs generally run at higher clock speeds than the G4 systems, and other parts of the system (cache, I/O, bus speeds, etc.) are all different.

Anyway, depending on the design and performance of all these ancilliary parts, it is quite possible that a 1.7GHz PowerBook could outperform a 1.6GHz G5 system.

While your gut feeling might say that a G5 will have to be faster than a G4 at the same clock speed, simply because it's newer and 64-bit, this isn't always the case.

Simply making a chip 64-bit does not speed up anything. It just allows programs to do 64-bit arithmetic without software libraries, and allows them to access more than 4GB of memory. For apps that don't do either, a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the same chip will perform almost identically.

And newer isn't always more optimized. For instance, it is well known that the older G3 (PowerPC 750) will outperform a G4 at the same clock speed. The G4 gets its advantage from the fact that it supports much higher clock speeds, and that it has a vector-math module ("AltiVec", which Apple calls the "Velocity Engine") that the G3 doesn't have. For apps that don't use AltiVec, an 800MHz G3 (for example) will actually outperform an 800MHz G4.
 
1,6 GHZ G4 FSB 200 with 1 MB Cache
13,3 WD Display 1154x768
512 MB RAM PC400
80 GB - 5.400
Geforce 6200 GO

1,8 Ghz G4 FSB 200 with 1 MB Cache
15,4 WD Display 1440x1280
512 MB RAM PC400
100GB - 5.400
ATI X800

How realistic ist that?
 
panphage said:
The powermacs require liquid cooling because Apple's system controller is a hot bastard. That's my guess. Do the iMac G5's require massive cooling? No. Maybe 2.5GHz consumes quite a bit more power than 1.4GHz? Maybe IBM's powerconsumption #s turned out totally wrong or are misleading like all other power consumption #s? I really don't know.
Click to expand...
IBM wrote about this when the 970FX first shipped.

The 970FX does consume less power than a 970 at the same clock speed. As such, it does generate less heat.

But that heat is concentrated into a smaller space, because the chip is physically smaller. Therefore, the heat density is higher, requiring a more aggressive cooling system in order to keep that spot temperature within normal operating ranges.

When they introduced the liquid cooling, Apple said that it isn't strictly necessary for the 2.5GHz systems. They could use a more traditional heat sink system, but they would have to move a lot more air through the system. Which means faster fans and more noise. With the liquid cooling system, they can keep the fan speeds down, and the entire system can run quieter.

(Of course, future systems at higher speeds may actually end up requiring the liquid system, so it's probably a good idea for them to develop it now, before it becomes a critical requirement.)
 
sigh...

GonzoRob said:
its fubr at the moment, but apple will sort it out , i have faith ...
i still think we are only going to see a 170mhz jump. Look on the bright side. My first computer (amiga 500) had a clock speed of 7.14 MHz.. this upgrade alone is 23 times more than that :p j/k
Click to expand...

sigh...

I've been waiting too long for my PB, and I have no portable right now...

I refuse to buy something 1st gen from apple, and don't see the 2nd gen of G5s PBs coming till closer to 2007... so... I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and purchase the next upgrade they announce

Hopefully it's significant or I'll be kicking myself for not buying the current ones at clearance prices...
 
AidenShaw said:
(I'm not sure if you're kidding about buying a car in OR and bringing it back to CA. Be very careful about that - only new residents of CA get to bring their cars into the state without tax implications.

When you go to get your CA license plates you could be nailed for the tax at that point if you're already a CA resident. You also don't want to try to register the car in OR - if you're ever stopped while driving with a CA driver's license in a car registered in your name in OR....)
Click to expand...
As you wrote, most states want to see proof of paid-up sales tax as a part of registering the vehicle. If you didn't pay any (or if you paid it in another state at a rate less than the state where you're registering it), they often want you to pay the difference first.

I distinctly remember this line on the form when I moved from NJ to VA. Since NJ's sales tax is higher than VA's, I didn't have to pay any extra.

WRT California, however, it's worse than that. CA has emissions laws that are far stricter than most states. A car purchased out of state generally will not have the "California emissions" package installed. It may be hard to get this car to pass inspection without som expensive modifications to the emissions system.
 
chiwawa2004 said:
1,6 GHZ G4 FSB 200 with 1 MB Cache
13,3 WD Display 1154x768
512 MB RAM PC400
80 GB - 5.400
Geforce 6200 GO

1,8 Ghz G4 FSB 200 with 1 MB Cache
15,4 WD Display 1440x1280
512 MB RAM PC400
100GB - 5.400
ATI X800

How realistic ist that?
Click to expand...

12" = 1.5 Ghz all the same except slightly faster hard drives, superdrive and bluetooth 2 as standard
15/17" = 1.67Mhz all the same, again .. the above options as standard

might be a price drop also

all i want is a better gfx card on the 12" :)
 
shamino said:
I'll see if I can explain.

The G4 is a Motorola/Freescale PowerPC 74xx series processor. It is 32-bit, supports up to 4G of RAM (if the motherboard does, of course), and runs at a variety of different clock speeds, topping out at around 1.7GHz these days.

The G5 is an IBM PowerPC 970 series processor. It is 64-bit, but is compatible with 32-bit software. It theoretically supports up to 16ExB (that's 16 million TB), but no motherboard in existance comes close to that capacity (The top-end Mac G5 motherboards support up to 8G right now.) It also runs at a variety of different clock speeds, topping out at 2.5GHz these days.

In terms of performance, a G5 is more efficient than a G4 for many operations. Some of this is due to a different fabrication process and some due to optimizations in the microcode/functional units. The G5's benefits really manifest themselves when you're running 64-bit code - programs that need to do 64-bit arithmetic or use more than 4G of memory can do so without software kluges, because the processor has built-in support.

For more ordinary applications (32-bit code, less than 4G of RAM used), the differences are much smaller. Overall, for these kinds of apps, with all else being equal a G4 and a G5 at the same clock speed will perform similar to each other.

Of course, all else is not equal. G5 PowerMacs and iMacs generally run at higher clock speeds than the G4 systems, and other parts of the system (cache, I/O, bus speeds, etc.) are all different.

Anyway, depending on the design and performance of all these ancilliary parts, it is quite possible that a 1.7GHz PowerBook could outperform a 1.6GHz G5 system.

While your gut feeling might say that a G5 will have to be faster than a G4 at the same clock speed, simply because it's newer and 64-bit, this isn't always the case.

Simply making a chip 64-bit does not speed up anything. It just allows programs to do 64-bit arithmetic without software libraries, and allows them to access more than 4GB of memory. For apps that don't do either, a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the same chip will perform almost identically.

And newer isn't always more optimized. For instance, it is well known that the older G3 (PowerPC 750) will outperform a G4 at the same clock speed. The G4 gets its advantage from the fact that it supports much higher clock speeds, and that it has a vector-math module ("AltiVec", which Apple calls the "Velocity Engine") that the G3 doesn't have. For apps that don't use AltiVec, an 800MHz G3 (for example) will actually outperform an 800MHz G4.
Click to expand...

Or a simpler way to say it...
A dual core 1.5 GHz G4 would have speed like a dual processor Mac. It would easily outperform a 1.5 GHz G5, and probably a 2 GHz G5 as well.
 
GFLPraxis said:
Or a simpler way to say it...
A dual core 1.5 GHz G4 would have speed like a dual processor Mac.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the same, but close enough for ballpark estimates.
GFLPraxis said:
It would easily outperform a 1.5 GHz G5, and probably a 2 GHz G5 as well.
Click to expand...
Assuming your application is multithreaded. Dual CPUs don't speed up single-threaded apps (aside from allowing the OS to run its background stuff on a different CPU.)

Fortunately, most heavy-hitting apps for the Mac are multithreaded these days. They are designed that way in order to take advantage of the dual-CPU PowerMacs that have been shipping for over four years. (The first dual-CPU Mac was the dual-500MHz G4, which shipped in July 2000.)
 
miloblithe said:
The Power Macintosh 9600, February 1997 had dual 200Mhz 604e processors.

The Power Macintosh 9500, May 1995 had dual 180Mhz 604 processors.
Click to expand...
You got me here.

In my defense, however, I will point out that before the introduction of MacOS X, the second CPU was almost useless. Neither MacOS, nor the thread manager, nor most multithreaded apps would use the second processor. Only a small number of apps written to use a special-purpose API were ever able to take advantage of it.
 
shamino said:
You got me here.

In my defense, however, I will point out that before the introduction of MacOS X, the second CPU was almost useless. Neither MacOS, nor the thread manager, nor most multithreaded apps would use the second processor. Only a small number of apps written to use a special-purpose API were ever able to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. A programmer and OS expert I'm not. Geekilly obsessed with Mac statistics I am.

http://www.apple-history.com
 
chaos86 said:
ah yes, but lets not forget that benchmarks are taken from brand new machines. put a 1 year used mac up against a one year used pc and see who wins. after a year of viruses, spyware, 30 taskbar icons, windows corrupting itself, etc etc the mac will come out the victor every time. and it wont have an unchangable porno homepage and 8 million non-deletable porn favorites either.
Click to expand...

Oh BS. You are distorting the facts. Compare used hardware to used hardware. Well OK. http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html The Pentium M still thrashed the PowerBook. Guys you can't argue this. Legit benchmarks by actual Mac enthusiast sites have shown negligible performance jumps with speedbumps. Simply: the entire architecture of the PowerBook needs to be revamped to start seeing meaningful performance jumps. Everything from the CPU, to the chipset, to the screen used, to a lesser extent the optical drive used. (Blue-ray anyone? Are there even drives on the market yet?)
Right now it's like sucking through a dang straw. We're going to need a bigger pipe.

And so it begins. Time and again when Apple's hardware has fallen behind the 'o but its running OS X card gets pulled from its dusty shelf. But its running OS X and has the iLife apps. True enough but like any platform its software can and in many cases IS hampered by the hardware. Simple fact that applies to Apple's laptop line. Apple has sweet software and crappy (Laptop) hardware. PC's have sweet hardware and mediocre, at best, software. That is the choice you are left with when making your decision on a laptop system right now. I am waiting until I can have my cake and eat it to. I want solid hardware to go with that solid software. Bring on the G5 damn it!
headbang.gif
 
This is great, But when are PwerMac Updates Coming?!?!?!

I really need to get a G5 tower to replace my G4 sawtooth, but was told that they are updating soon...I'm getting antsy
 
dodonutter said:
How about apple just releases a cheap CRT, ie the one in the eMac, that you can mount the mini on, effectively making an eMac.

Actually on second thoughts they'll probably do something no one expected
Click to expand...

How about a $300 15" CRT that has a 6.5" wide, 2" tall slot in the front that a Mac Mini slips into, automatically making all the connections in the back, and is perfectly flush with the front? Sort of a "portable" eMac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back